Formulaic metadiscursive signalling devices in judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union
A new corpus-based model for studying discourse relations of texts.
Keywords:Law and Language, corpus linguistics, European Court of Justice, Court of Justice of the European Union, ECJ, CJEU, judgments, legal corpora, metadiscursive lexical items, signalling devices, text organisation, legal reasoning
This paper investigates how paragraph initial metadiscursive lexical items serve as signalling devices in text organisation of judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). The results of that investigation demonstrate that those metadiscursive items both shape a particular method of reasoning used by the ECJ, and have an impact on how readers process those texts.
Based on assumptions grounded in linguistics/legal linguistics that legal language is formulaic and repetitive in nature, the paper focuses on the use of repetitive items in ECJ judgments that perform metadiscursive rather than legal functions. Such items play a crucial role in the presentation of reasoning in judgments by signalling when and how various types of information occur in a discourse. The paper builds on established work in the field of linguistics that claims that legal reasoning can be understood from the utterances used in a text (Crystal and Davy, 1969), but importantly also considers the context in which judgments of the ECJ are produced and applied. Demonstrating the impact of language patterns on the legal reasoning of the ECJ is an inherently interdisciplinary exercise that involves the exploration of the cognitive dimension of the process. Thus, this paper contextualises the findings of the linguistic analysis carried out within the unique multilingual setting of the ECJ, using Koestler’s theory of creativity and cognitive theories of text processing as the basis of analysis.
The analysis leads to the conclusion that not only do language patterns found in ECJ judgments shape the method of reasoning used by that Court, but also that those judgments are made up of ‘almost wholly automised’ sub-codes of grammar and syntax. This conclusion supports claims made in law and language studies and among EU law practitioners that ECJ judgments are created in a ‘lego-building block’ fashion. The linguistic research carried out here can thus be used to triangulate results of research from other fields to allow a more holistic understanding of supranational adjudication in the EU context to be developed. This in turn can offer new ways for understanding how a multilingual legal order functions, as well as allowing researchers to work towards limiting inconsistencies arising in such a legal order.
Bock, M. (1980) ‘Some effects of titles on building and recalling text structures.' Discourse Processes, 3: 301-311.
Cappelletti, M (1987) ‘Is the European Court of Justice ‘Running Wild'?' European Law Review, 12: 3-17.
Cao F., Hu G. (2014) ‘Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences.' Journal of Pragmatics, 66: 15-31.
Charrow, V. R., Crandall, J. A., & Charrow, R. P. (1982) ‘Characteristics and functions of legal language.' In Kittredge, R. and Lehrberger, J. (Eds.), Sublanguage: Studies of language in restricted semantic domains. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 175-190.
Crombie, W. (1985) Discourse and Language Learning: A Relational Approach to Syllabus Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crystal, D. and Davy, D. (1969) Investigating English style. London: Longman.
Danet, B. (1980) ‘Language in the Legal Process.' Law and Society Review, 14(3): 445-564.
Davies, B. (2012) Resisting the European Court of Justice: West Germany's Confrontation with European Law, 1949-1979. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Derlén, M. (2009) Multilingual Interpretation of European Union Law. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Deroey, K.L.B. (2015) ‘Marking importance in lectures: Interactive and textual orientation.' Applied Linguistics, (36)1: 51-72.
Gibbons, J. (2014) Language and the Law. London: Routledge.
Gotti, M. (2008) Investigating specialized discourse. Bern: Peter Lang.
Goutsos, D. (1997) Modeling Discourse Topic: Sequential Relations and Strategies in Expository Text. Norwood: Ablex.
Gozdz-Roszkowski, S. (2011) Patterns of linguistic variation in American legal English: A corpus-based study. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang.
Grimmel, A. (2014) ‘The European Court of Justice and the Myth of Judicial Activism in the Foundational Period of Integration through Law.' European Journal of Legal Studies, 7(2):
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Harmsen, R and McAuliffe, K. (2014) ‘The European Courts.' In Magone J.M. (Ed.) The Handbook of European Politics. London: Routledge.
Hoey, M. (1985), ‘The paragraph boundary as a marker of relations between the parts of a discourse.' M.A.L.S. Journal 10: 96-107.
Hoey, M. (1991) Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoey, M. (2004) ‘Textual colligation: a special kind of lexical priming.'
Advances in Corpus Linguistics: Papers from ICAME 23, Götenborg 22-26 May 2002.
Hoey, M. (2005) Lexical Priming: a New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge.
Hoey, M. and M.B. O'Donnell (2008) ‘The beginning of something important? Corpus evidence on the text beginnings of hard news stories.' In Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (Ed.) Corpus Linguistics, Computer Tools and Applications: State of the Art. PALC 2007: 189-212.
Hyland, K. (1998) Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Hyland, K. (2000) Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2001) ‘Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles.' English for Specific Purposes, 20: 207-226.
Hyland, K. (2005) Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum: London.
Hyland, K. (2008) ‘As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation.' English for Specific Purposes, 27: 4-21.
Hyland, K. and Tse, P.(2004) ‘Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal.' Applied Linguistics 25 (2): 156-177.
Kjær, A. (1991) ‘Phraseologische Wortverbindungen in der Rechtssprache?‘ In Palm, C. (Ed.) Europhras 90. Akten der internationalen Tagung zur germanistischen Phraseologieforschung Aske/Schweden 12.-15. Juni 1990. Uppsala.
Koestler, A. (1964) The act of creation. London: Hutchinson.
Krug, D., George, B., Hannon, S., & Glover, J. (1989) ‘The Effect of Outlines and Headings on Readers' Recall of Text.' Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14 (2): 111-123.
Lorch, R. F. J. (1985) ‘Effects on recall of signals to text organization.' Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23: 374-376.
Lorch, R. F. J., and Lorch, E. P. (1996) ‘Effects of headings on text recall and summarization.' Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(3): 261-278.
Mattila, H. (2013) Comparative Legal Linguistics: Language of Law, Latin and Modern Lingua Francas, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
McAuliffe, K (2009) ‘Translation at the Court of Justice of the European Communities.' In Olsen, F., Lorz, A. and Stein, D. (Eds) Translation Issues in Language and Law. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
McAuliffe, K (2011a) ‘Hybrid Texts and Uniform Law? The Multilingual Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union' International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 24(1): 97-115.
McAuliffe, K. (2011b) ‘The Making of EU Law: Lego Building Bricks at the ECJ.' Paper presented at the Beyond Words workshop, RELINE, Copenhagen University 25th October 2011, RELINE Research Notes http://jura.ku.dk/pdf/reline/forskningsnoter/research-note-karen-mcauliffe-lego.pdf
McAuliffe, K (2012) ‘Language and Law in the European Union: The Multilingual Jurisprudence of the ECJ.' In Solan, P.M. and Tiersma, L. M. (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. Oxford: OUP.
McAuliffe, K (2013a) ‘Precedent at the ECJ: The Linguistic Aspect' Current Legal Issues, 15: 483-493.
McAuliffe, K (2013b) ‘The Limitations of a Multilingual Legal System' International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 26(4): 861-882.
Mayer, R. E. (1984) ‘Aids to text comprehension.' Educational Psychologist, 19: 30-42 Mellinkoff, D. (1963) The Language of the Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
Rasmussen, H. (1986) On Law and Policy in the European Court of Justice: A Comparative Study in Judicial Policymaking. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Stone Sweet, A. (2004) The Judicial Construction of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Salmi-Tolonen, T. (1994) ‘The linguistic manifestations of primary and secondary functions of law in the national and supranational contexts.' International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 2(19): 19-39.
Schauer, F. (1987) ‘Precedent.' Stanford Law Review, 39: 571-605.
Suomela-Salmi, E. (1992) ‘Some aspects of the pragmatic organization of discourse.' In Lindberg, A-C., Enkvist, N.E. adn Wiberg, K. (Eds.) Nordic research on text and discourse. Abo: Abo Akadémi Press.
Tadros, A. (1994) ‘Predictive categories in expository text.' In Coulthard, M. (Ed.) Advances in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge.
Tiersma, P. (1999) Legal Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vermeer, H. J. (2006) Versuch einer Intertheorie der Translation. Berlin: Frank and Timme.
Weiler, J. (1987) ‘The Court of Justice on Trial.' Common Market Law Review, 24: 555-589.
How to Cite
© Equinox Publishing Ltd.
For information regarding our Open Access policy, click here.